In the Head of Energy Secretary Chu

As most readers of this short paper probably know, Dr Steven Chu is the energy
secretary of the United States, a physicist, and a Nobel Laureate. Discovery
Magazine, in its latest issue (2011), selected what it called the "100 top
stories of 2010", one of which was authored by an editor of Discovery, and
whose main purpose was to verify Dr Chu's green credentials.

Some important observations of the Econ 101 variety were missing from Dr Chu's
answers to editor Corey Powell's questions, which unfortunately prevents me
from recommending his 'piece' to serious readers.

Mr Powell began this Q&A with a reference to the Gulf Coast oil spill,
asking how an accident of this magnitude could happen. I won't bother to discuss
Dr Chu's answer, because both question and answer were irrelevant. Statistically,
accidents of that type are unavoidable, and have always taken place. If we
go back to the Second World War, we can look e.g. the unnecessary invasion
of Peleliu Island and the attack on Manila, the failure to clear the approaches
to the port of Antwerp as soon as possible, and perhaps the worst blunder of
all, which was adopting the Sherman as the main American battle tank. Compared
to those 'accidents', the Gulf Coast tragedy was small beer.

For long term energy investments, Dr Chu pictures the U.S. moving toward the
electrification of personal vehicles. So do I, only I don't have a clue as
to the details, nor how rapidly a large-scale electrification could be completed
if deemed necessary. I therefore wonder if the secretary and his foot soldiers
could provide us with the kind of information that we can use in our teaching
and publications, and to do so as soon as possible - assuming that they, unlike
my good self, have examined this issue sufficiently to tell us something beyond
public relations hype.

His thoughts on nuclear energy bother me somewhat, because he states that
large reactors will cost 7 to 8 billion (US) dollars. I regard that estimate
as completely and totally wrong, and suggest that he should have a talk with
Anne Lauvergeon about her plans for her firm Areva, as well as what she knows
about the new Chinese reactors. Evidence from the nuclear past and present
leads me to insist that "large" reactors, whose construction is organized by
competent managers, will soon cost a maximum of 5 billion dollars. This is
because the time span from ground break to grid power will be less than 5 years,
and when the nuclear renaissance moves into full swing, perhaps much less.

"Future-gen" (in the form of zero-emission coal power plants) evidently plays
a prominent role in Dr Chu's vision of an optimal energy structure. It plays
none whatsoever in mine however, and I never use the expression "future-gen" nor
listen to anyone discussing it. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is an
element in this activity, and the Swedish firm Vattenfall once made certain
optimistic promises to the German government and newspaper readers concerning
their efforts in that direction. Jeffrey Michel, an MIT graduate and energy
consultant living in Germany, calls CCS a thermodynamic travesty, and remembering
my own long and delightful study of thermodynamics and engineering economics
causes me to say that Michel's judgement is much too mild.

A carbon-free United States in 2050 seems to be one of Secretary Chu's more
abstract notions. Interestingly, a recent large energy meeting in Berlin was
on the same wave length, where the emphasis was on solar and wind's place on
the German energy scene in the same year. As far as I am concerned, the German
intentions are strictly off-the-wall, and in 2050 the German nuclear intensity
will match or overmatch that in France. The nuclear equipment will be breeders,
and I sincerely hope that the security problems associated with those reactors
are solved the way that they should be solved, because if not somebody could
be in a world of hurt.

Finally, Dr Chu mentions that "there is no law of physics which states that
the whole society can't benefit", and unlike the contention of e.g. Gordon
Gekko (in the film Wall Street), he says that "there is no zero sum game here".
It was really very decent of the Secretary to inform us of his interest in
the subject of game theory, because in a world of 9.5 billion souls - which
is his prophecy for 2050 - a complicated version (or extension) of the zero
sum paradigm is going to be the order of the day, and there is very little
- or more realistically nothing - that he or all the Nobel Prize winners since
Adam and Eve can do about that.

Information/Articles and Prices on a wide range of commodities: We
have assembled a team of experienced writers to provide you with information
on Crude Oil, Oil Price History, Gold Prices, etc... In a format that appeals
to both novices and industry professionals.